The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network publishes the World Happiness Report every year on March 20, the International Day of Happiness.
The report uses data from the past two years’ Gallup World Poll surveys, with 149 countries surveyed for this year’s edition. The report’s rankings are based on an assessment of six factors — GDP, life expectancy, generosity, social support, freedom and corruption.
According to this year’s report, the leading countries for happiness in the Asia-Pacific region are New Zealand in ninth place overall, Australia in 12th place and Taiwan in 19th place, while Japan ranks 40th, South Korea 50th and China 52nd.
With respect to long-term trends, Taiwan in 2013 ranked a relatively low 42nd, but advanced to 33rd in 2017.
In 2018, it broke into the top 30 by reaching 26th place, and it further improved to 25th in 2019 and 24th last year.
This year, it has braved the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic to advance to 19th place, while maintaining its status as the happiest country in East Asia.
In light of the picture that domestic media present of society, some Taiwanese might not think that life in the nation is particularly happy. Individual perceptions might vary, and should be respected.
Nonetheless, international surveys such as those released by the UN are objective comparisons of countries around the world, and when Taiwan receives such a high rating, one cannot help feeling a “sense of relative advantage.”
Especially those in government deserve to feel a sense of honor, but the opposition parties can also claim a share in what has been achieved under their strong supervision.
As a Taiwanese, the next time someone asks you whether you have been happy in the past few years, you can at least answer with a smile that evidence published under the auspices of the UN shows that Taiwan’s happiness ranks 19th in the world. If we do not feel happy, what about all the people who live in advanced countries that rank below us?
On the other hand, those in government should continue to step gingerly, as if treading on thin ice. They must go on striving to optimize their governance of the nation. That would be the most concrete way for them to respond to the high evaluation that the public has given them.
Tsao Yao-chun is a researcher with the Chinese Association of Public Affairs Management.
Translated by Julian Clegg
“Testy,” “divisive,” “frigid,” “an exchange of insults” were some of the media descriptions of last month’s meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts. Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass said that, rather than the “deft handling” needed in US-China relations, this encounter was “mishandled, a terrible start [with] way too much public signaling.” Yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, the acrimonious encounter with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) was a great success for US diplomacy
A meeting between US and Chinese officials in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, showed that the US-China struggle will no doubt continue during the administration of US President Joe Biden. The struggle between democracies and authoritarian regimes is likely to last decades, because it stems from the fundamental difference in the two value systems — a difference that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as an existential threat. The CCP fears that Chinese might someday demand the protection of individual liberties, and has therefore waged a years-long “total war” to undermine democracies, which eventually prompted the US to fight back. Within the
Minister of Transportation and Communications Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) offered his resignation to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in the aftermath of Friday last week’s fatal Taroko Express No. 408 crash. Su declined, asking him to stay for the time being and deal with the response, as that was the responsible thing to do. The complex question of responsibility for the tragedy will be answered more fully after investigations and reviews have been completed. It is right that Lin offered to take the fall, and just as right that Su asked him to stay to oversee the response. While neither are completely